Diplomatic Carry - New Ideas are Scary for Some

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner.

Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative.

So they go armed. It’s only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they’re both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, “laws to the contrary notwithstanding” [and this includes all of New York City]. That’s lawyer-speak for “their right to carry supersedes any other rules,” or in plainer English, “We’re above those laws.” The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I’m guessing Hillary does not.

There’s this whole “second system” of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed.

Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too?

Is a diplomat’s life truly at more risk — or worth more — than any “commoner”? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren’t going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we’re armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don’t deserve it).

We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this “a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled.” All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can’t understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.

Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. — from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with — keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.

But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?

The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.

Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone’s uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that’s OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.

Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that’s countervailing force. I don’t like it, but there it is.

Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?

The only consistent position for free people to take is this: Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.

I am in the process of dissecting the legal framework that enables Diplomatic Carry, and modeling an approach for extending those principles to the public. Conceptually this is sound. Pragmatically it is an uphill climb, but as Americans we know that anything can be climbed. I’ll have early results soon in my blog, PageNine.org. Sign up to stay informed.

Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Animal Rights Wacko's Lawsuit Demands Constitutional Rights for Killer Whales

Gunlaws.com

SAN DIEGO --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales that perform at marine parks – an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America’s law schools over expansion of animal rights,” according to the Associated Press. http://tiny.cc/c0jps .

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery… PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.

The plaintiffs are the five orcas – Tilikum and Katina, based at SeaWorld in Orlando; and Corky, Kasatka and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego. Tilikum, a 6-ton male, made national news in February 2010 when he grabbed a trainer at the close of a performance and dragged her underwater until she drowned. PETA’s five-member legal team spent 18 months preparing the case.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: Any questions remaining about the U.S. justice system’s legitimacy, and willingness to stray from the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence, were put to death today with the acceptance of a slavery lawsuit defending animals — that belongs instead in an obscure philosophy journal, but I repeat myself.

In days when the justice system would cling vigorously to real law, a case like this would have been summarily dismissed, its perpetrator lawyers disbarred, and the legal community in need of oxygen for laughing so hard. A simple question or two from the bench would have served to sever the nonsense and ridicule the monstrous assault on American courts.

“When did your clients retain you for this action counselor?” “What are your clients’ goals?” While those questions expose the silliness, the followup would deserve punishment: “Are you saying your clients don’t even know you’ve decided to represent them, and have not agreed to be party to this suit?” And of course, “Do we need an interpreter for this case, and what language should that person speak?” The courts no longer entertain such inquiry, no matter how bizarre a case they face. In common terms, that’s malfeasance, grounds for removal from office, with prejudice.

One of the unwitting so-called plaintiffs committed murder but has not been charged. The parties remained silent on whether the murder charge would apply, if the whales are granted 13th Amendment anti-slavery human rights.

The Founding Fathers could not be reached to see if they expected wild animals to be covered by the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: Nothing. But it does frequently refer to the benign life-saving wonderful efforts of environmentally sensitive animal lovers in PETA.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: “NEWTOWN, Conn. — When you’re feasting on holiday meals and leftovers, here’s a story to tell — one that would not be possible without the thoughtfulness and generosity of hunters.

“A new study commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and conducted by Mile Creek Communications reveals that last year 11 million meals were provided to the less fortunate through donations of venison by hunters. Nearly 2.8 million pounds of game meat made its way to shelters, food banks and church kitchens and onto the plates of those in need.

” Given our challenging economic times, hunters’ donations of venison have never been more important to so many people,’ said Stephen L. Sanetti, president and CEO of NSSF, the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. ‘These contributions are just one way hunting and hunters are important to our way of life in America. Learning about these impressive figures makes me proud to be a hunter. I have donated game meat during the past year, and I urge my fellow hunters to strongly consider sharing their harvest. ”

” These figures are from confirmed sources, but annual donations could easily be double this amount if direct donations from hunters to friends and family are included,’ said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF’s director of statistics and research.”

Often overlooked by animal “rights” radicals is the fact that laws typically make it illegal to let any edible portion of harvested game go to waste. Urban dwellers are often unaware that meat does not come from a foam tray covered in plastic wrap.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gun-Free Presidential Debates

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you:

Look — over here – look, it’s economic policy, and jobs, and not enough jobs, and economic policy, and the debt, and the deficit, and government waste, and jobs and economics, and, and, and…

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Not a single presidential candidate in any debate so far has mentioned guns. The Second Amendment — the number one issue for huge numbers of Americans, has been hidden from view, avoided, virtually censored, never raised.

Have you noticed, or has the clamor about economy blinded you so effectively?

None of the reporters ask where the candidates stand on gun rights. No one asks about Fast and Furious, or brings it up. What a great forum for confronting the Obama Administration on flat out malfeasance, and stonewalling, and felony gun smuggling for political ends. Won’t somebody raise the issue, just once, and get the nation talking.

By narrowing down the examination of the presidential contenders to a small handful of related issues, the public is being shortchanged, transparency is absent, and, and, and, we haven’t gotten a frickin clue where these people stand on the right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s betting that if and when the subject finally comes up, the wannabees mouth pablum, and the interviewers let them all slide without cutting deep. That’s an easy prediction – the lamestream perpetrators (accent on the last two syllables) don’t know enough about guns or gun policy to ask incisive questions.

OK, I’ll suggest one, “So, if you stand in such vigorous support of the Second Amendment, do you support marksmanship training in schools?”

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: Nothing (NBC). Very little (ABC). Nothing lately (CBS).

FOX News presented a one-hour special that all but called the BATFE Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scheme the Watergate for Mr. Obama. Special segment host Sean Hannity directly associated Nixon’s illegal activities with this drug-cartel gun-smuggling operation.

Comments that, “We will never run any stories like that because it could hurt our beloved president,” from the three networks, could not be confirmed.

Project Gunrunner: The Southwest Border Initiative

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: A full-color brochure produced by BATFE in March of 2009 at the start of the federal gun-smuggling operation has resurfaced, and seems to implicate BATFE in illegal operations. The brochure clearly outlines known criminal activity, which congressional testimony and other evidence has confirmed BATFE knew about and in fact ran for an extended period of time.

According to the information published by BATFE itself: “Firearm trafficking is the movement of firearms from the legal to the illegal marketplace. It is one of the most pressing problems in the firearms industry today… Firearms originating in the United states have been used to murder U.S. citizens and foreign officials… In response to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (BATFE) is committed to denying the tools of the trade to drug trafficking organizations…”

The brochure explicitly acknowledges that what BATFE was doing was strictly illegal, against established policy, and that BATFE was engaging in these specifically known and outlawed acts. BATFE facilitated “the movement of firearms from the legal to the illegal marketplace.”

BATFE knowingly did this, aware that, “Firearms originating in the United states have been used to murder U.S. citizens and foreign officials.” BATFE countermanded their stated policy by supplying, instead of denying, “the tools of the trade to drug trafficking organizations.”

In congressional testimony, BATFE agents denied knowing what they were doing, or taking responsibility for their actions, and in fact promoted some of their staff who were directly involved in supplying guns to the cartels, which they knew would be used to commit murders.

Both houses of Congress are investigating the murderous behaviors, and both Rep. Isaa and Sen. Grassley have now demanded information from the FBI, who appears complicit in the operation. Several of the straw purchasers BATFE used could not possibly pass a NICS background check, run by the FBI and required for every purchase made.

In other news, 10 of 15 Arizona Sheriffs have declared their intent to investigate BATFE criminal activity in the federal government gun-smuggling operation:

“A majority of Arizona’s county sheriffs on Friday (10/8/11) called upon President Barack Obama to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the government’s botched gun-smuggling case known as Operation Fast and Furious.

“At a Phoenix news conference, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said the sting operation, which allowed an estimated 2,000+ firearms to reach narcotics cartels in Mexico, was a betrayal that should lead to the removal of Attorney General Eric Holder and possible criminal charges against those responsible.

” ‘I believe that this is a much larger scandal than what took place in Watergate,’ said Babeu, who is president of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association.” This according to The Arizona Republic.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar said, “When you facilitate that and a murder or a felony occurs, you’re called an accessory.”. “That means that there’s criminal activity.”

In a letter to Congress AG Holder “said he felt compelled to comment because of ‘irresponsible and inflammatory’ statements about the case by a House member who said those involved with Fast and Furious should be regarded as ‘accessories to murder,’” according to The Arizona Republic state newspaper. The brochure issued by BATFE confirms that the agency was aware its actions were strictly illegal, but does not directly implicate Holder or Obama. Holder’s testimony to Congress was replete with contradictions and statements that did not stand up to scrutiny, hence the ongoing investigation.

In other news, it was learned last week that a county attorney within Arizona may be planning a separate action with regard to the illegal smuggling operation, but details will not be released until the plans are settled. After prodding, it was not clear if the state taxing authority would look into tax violations for one of the straw buyers, who spent six-figure money on guns he could not legally buy, with no visible means of support, and hence no paid taxes.

Evidence is almost insurmountable that Eric Holder and Mr. Obama knew in advance about Fast and Furious, let the program run, and used the bogus stats to bolster a case against private gun ownership and for government registration of firearms.

They had been promoting the supposed iron-river into Mexico both here and abroad, until it became evident that the numbers they used were false.

In still other news, a document is apparently circulating in the halls of government seeking to eliminate the BATFE. Rumors of such a plan have been circulating for years, and internal scutllebut suggests BATFE is a laughing stock among the rough riders of federal law enforcement.

“Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer. ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.

” ‘It’s a serious white paper being circulated, how far they’d get with it I don’t know,’ a confidential source said. http://tiny.cc/lrwd7

“After a town hall meeting about Operation Fast and Furious in Tucson, Ariz., ATF Whistleblower Vince Cefalu, who has been key in exposing details about Operation Fast and Furious, confirmed the elimination of ATF has been circulating as a serious idea for sometime now and that a white paper outlining the plan does exist.”

“ATF” is an abbreviation of BATFE, which the bureau prefers, since five-letter acronyms are seen as less manly. Since the group now claims jurisdiction over really awesome wild fires, it’s acronym perhaps should be BATFERAWF. If you add “And Gun Smuggling” you get BATFERAWFAGS.

According to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, jpfo.org, which bills itself as America’s Most Aggressive Defender of Gun Ownership, having a Keystone Kops organization life BATFE in charge of firearms is far superior to having a massively powerful and invasive group like the FBI take charge of the civil right to arms.

“Leave BATFE in place, but replace their badges and guns with business cards and notepads, so it’s clear they’re just bureaucrats,” one member was heard to say.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

This cartoon is now history for Arizona -- the bans are removed from our laws. (New Jersey you are welcome to it)

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- It’s hard to express the feeling I have, now that the 25th edition of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide is in print.

And this milestone — which I could not have imagined when I started back in 1988 — is the least of it.

This is the Constitutional Carry edition — vibrant freedom to keep and bear arms in my home state! The best gun laws in the world.

All the updates and bits and pieces are smoothly woven together, especially new self defense and uninfringed carry. Some of the results even surprised me. Except for prohibited possessors and prohibited places, it is now practically impossible to carry illegally in this state. Government is out of your face, out of your pockets, out of the picture when it comes to bearing arms. It was pure joy to delete all the infringements, the mandatory red tape, mandatory approvals, paperwork, criminal database requirements, DPS trainer approvals…

I even lost a cartoon! It took me quite a few attempts to finally realize I can’t rewrite this caption — Arizona has outgrown this image, because there are no more “only when it’s legal” rules! I left the image in only to make that point.

The price remained unchanged, only $14.95, cheaper than a lawyer, and there’s a 40% discount on six copies or more — get together with friends or your club and buy a batch, Christmas is coming, makes a great gift, nice colorful redesigned cover. Now that training isn’t forced upon you it’s more important than ever to make sure everyone gets educated.

The following excerpt from the opening of Chapter 2, now my favorite part:

Arizona has become a shining example of freedom for the nation, now that most restrictions and interference on either open or discreet carry of firearms have been removed. With passage of Constitutional Carry in 2010, just about any method of bearing arms here is legal. The main limits are in the lists of prohibited places, people banned from firearms altogether, rules for youth and certain illegal arms.

Arizona has respected uninfringed open-carry freedom since statehood in 1912. A law-abiding adult here, not just residents, could always carry a firearm wholly or partially visible, with no need for classes, government applications, recordkeeping, registries, taxes called “fees,” paperwork, testing, fingerprinting, listing in online criminal databases, permission slips, photos, or other interference or red tape. This has a name you’ve heard–it’s called freedom.

This freedom served the state well, though it got confusing during the late 1990s when some activist court cases questioned what “visible” means. Those problems have been eliminated by new law. Now, the same open-carry freedom this state has always enjoyed is available for people who carry discreetly, a somewhat more suitable method now that urbanization, increased population and a media-fueled cultural shift has made the open carrying of arms less unobtrusive. After 16 years of CCW permits (1994-2010) evidence was overwhelming that CCW registration schemes were costly and didn’t make you safer.

Firearms may be carried either openly or discreetly in Arizona, loaded or unloaded, by any adult legally in the state, who is not banned from possessing arms. Special rules for youngsters, and places where guns may not be carried, are described later. We have in essence extended the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the entire planet.

Arizona Gun Owner's Guide 25th Edition

I will have copies at the Crossroads Gun Show, Oct. 29-30, at the Cardinals football stadium in Glendale, see me there (and walk around on the game floor!) I also have some statewide travel planned, tagging along with my friend and tax-control advocate Tom Jenney of Americans for Prosperity, http://www.aztaxpayers.org, on his upcoming speaking tour to congressional and legislative districts. Drop me a line and we’ll arrange to meet if we can:

December 1, 2011 Casa Grande Thursday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 1, LD 23

December 9, 2011 Lake Havasu Friday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 2, LD 3

Dec 10, 2011 Bullhead City Saturday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 2, LD 3

December 10, 2011 Kingman Saturday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 2, LD 3

December 11, 2011 Wickenburg Sunday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 2, LD 4

December 16, 2011 Quartzsite Friday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CD 2, LD 3

December 17, 2011 Yuma Saturday; details TBA
Policy Speakers: Tom Jenney, Director, AFP-Arizona; others TBA
Political Districts: CDs 2 & 7, LD 24

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

7.62x39 Ammunition

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Ten of Arizona’s fifteen sheriffs have publicly demanded an investigation of BATFE over its gun-smuggling enterprise for the Mexican drug cartels.

Badly stung by congressional hearings and whistleblowers within BATFE, the rogue agency responded by promoting the main culprits and moving them to other offices.

Simply follow “Fast and Furious” and scroll through tons of sordid details.

Attempting again to deflect criticism and forestall upcoming criminal charges, the extremely controversial agency has developed information to promote a story, running nationwide today, that the real problem is all the ammunition being smuggled into Mexico.

The basically single-sourced story (“officials” and anti-rights advocates) decries the tons of ammo flowing into Mexico, claiming it comes almost exclusively from the U.S. It fails to point out that BATFE, Homeland Security and the Border Patrol have essentially no control over the border, allowing such supposed massive smuggling to take place in the first place.

Numbers for captured ammo do not estimate the amounts of ammo missed by authorities, or any other sources of supply, like the massive cold-war warehouses throughout central and south America, and direct imports from foreign makers.

Although the story claims, with no significant backup, that the ammo comes almost exclusively from the U.S., it does mention large quantities of AK-47 ammo (presumably 7.62 x 39, though it isn’t specified), “preferred” by the cartels.

This of course basically comes from former communist bloc countries and communist China. A full report will be coming soon in an issue of Page Nine. www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: Violent Crimes Plunged by 12% in U.S. in 2010. Pete Yost, beat reporter, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – “The number of violent crimes fell by a surprising 12 percent in the U.S. last year, a far bigger drop than the nation has averaged since 2001, the Justice Department says. Experts aren’t sure why. The expectation had been that crime would increase in a weak economy with high unemployment.”

“The drop dwarfs the 3 percent decline the nation averaged from 2001 through 2009. More than 80 percent of the decline was attributed to a 15 percent plunge in simple assaults, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all violent crimes in 2010.

“It is clear the decline in violent crime is part of a long-term trend that began in 1993. From then through 2010, violent crime declined by a whopping 70 percent: from 49.9 crimes per 1,000 persons age 12 and older to 14.9 per 1,000 in 2010.

“The ‘Victimization Survey’ figures are considered the government’s most reliable crime statistics because they count crimes reported to the police as well as those unreported. The government has found that only about half of all violent crimes and 40 percent of property crimes are reported to police. Because the survey is based on interviews with victims, it gathers no data on murder [think about that for a moment]. But murder is by far the least frequent major crime; 15,241 were reported in 2009.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
With familiar open-mindedness, the “news” media and its experts can’t for the life of them understand why crime might be dropping. They’ve considered and discarded every imaginable reason, save the “unmentionable” one — the American public is increasingly armed on the street.

What is the only one reason millions of America carry firearms daily? To deter crime. Ahh, that’ll never work.

Having regained the right to bear arms, with the permission-slip and Constitutional Carry programs that have swept the nation (except Illinois,[and New Jersey] yet), the drop in crime surprisingly coincides with proliferation of the discreet-carry permit programs. Florida got the ball rolling in 1987, but it wasn’t until the early 1990s that a tsunami of states joined the plan, and crime “coincidentally” plummeted.

Not one official even hinted that this significant cultural, sociological and pragmatic change existed, let alone mattered. There my friend, in a nutshell, is the grotesque bias of the media, displayed on a platter.

All the empirical evidence points to an armed populace as a deterrent to crime. Though there is little doubt in the minds of the armed half of the nation, with experiences to boot, there is nothing but doubt, and terror, in the minds of the hoplophobic left and its media denizens. After every expanse in freedom on the right to bear arms, the left imagines gloom — projecting their own internal insecurities and fear, detached from reality. None of the projections materialize, and crime drops, but they continue with the projections, invulnerable to the pure white light of day and the facts before their eyes.

Every person who owns a gun understands it is a crime deterrent. Many don’t presume, they know first hand. The only significant difference in the balance of power between criminals and the public in the last bunch of years is CCW. Why on Earth would the pundits who designed and created the data for this finding (“crime drops”) fail to speculate that the armed citizenry had something to do with it? Why indeed.

In other news, the 20 crimes on the federal books in 1790 have grown to more than 4,500 today, according to the latest research in the Wall Street Journal. Worse, many no longer require “mens rea,” or intent to break the law, a bedrock of protecting the innocent. So even if you act honorably, you can be convicted of unknowable offenses. Sentences for all sorts of crimes have increased, and mandatory sentences for minor infractions are increasing faster than the money supply.

And what’s with this “Victimization Survey”? How victimized does the government want us to feel? Isn’t this a “Committed Crime” survey? Or “Crimes Against the Public” survey? Aren’t these now “Reported Crimes”? Whoever named this thing “victimization” needs reeducation camp. How many of the “victims” prevailed?

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you:

9/17/11, Airbase is put on lock down in scare TUCSON – For six hours on Friday, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base was locked down while authorities from multiple agencies scoured the sprawling base for a gunman.

After conducting a search “floor by floor, room by room,” said Col. John Cherrey, commander of the base, “no gunman or weapon was found,” and said the base was locked down following an unconfirmed report of a gunman who had entered a building. Authorities from the FBI, the Tucson Police Department and the Tucson Fire Department joined base officials in the search, which also involved multiple SWAT teams. A military official told the Associated Press and NBC News that a man was holed up in a building on the base. The discrepancy was not explained.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Of all the unmitigated outrageous insults that have been forced upon this nation, requiring the police to protect the military may be the absolute worst. The idea that a lone maniac (“gunman” cited three times in just two sentences), is grounds for incapacitating an entire U.S. military base is preposterous. Requiring police to search an Air Force base for a (non-existent in this case) villain is the height of emasculation. The reporter failed to note that the military is a heavily armed force capable of toppling nations.

You’re Americans, you should remember this: If anyone attacks our military, the attackers have signed their death warrants, and the military is always unconditionally authorized to respond and execute the warrant. Why police and SWAT teams and the FBI and the fire department (the fire department?) were called in was unclear at press time.

In America, we don’t send in police to do the military’s job. C’mon fellas, get real. Someone in the chain of command (the military and the media) should have questioned this bizarre travesty, put a stop to it. Reams of expensive reports are likely to come out of the event.

Miltary leaders: Stand up to this abuse, never let mere police be responsible for your protection, keep them off base and mobilize your troops. Call in cops only when it’s time to remove the trash (dead or alive), and help reverse this insidious attack on America from her domestic enemies.

Cops are good, serve important purposes. This ain’t one of them.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: The 413 killings by police nationwide that were ruled justifiable in 2009 were the most since 1994, FBI statistics show.

And the 262 killings by private individuals ruled self-defense were the most since 1997. National numbers for 2010 are not yet available. With some variations, the numbers for both categories have been trending upward since about 2000.

Interestingly, the national rise in justifiable homicides has occurred as violent crime levels have dropped. The estimated U.S. violent crime level total in 2009 was 5.2 percent below the 2005 level and 7.5 percent below the 2000 level, according to the FBI.

A similar trend can be seen in Virginia, where 117 people have died in justifiable killings by police and 95 by private individuals between 1990 and 2010, according to an analysis of state and federal crime statistics by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Guns were used in 94 percent of the deaths. By Mark Bowes, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. http://tinyurl.com/3t3894u

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: I’ve got nothing to add.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: Arizona has some of the worst, most lax gun laws in the nation. The Brady Center for the Promotion of Gun Violence gave the state a zero (out of a possible 100) on its report card rating for gun laws, it’s so bad.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Arizona has extremely strict gun laws, with everything remotely criminal against the law, usually several ways, with steep fines, long jail time and vigorous prosecutors. You can be put to death in Arizona for the worst violations.

What Arizona has that makes the left and the anti-rights mob so angry, is robust protection for the civil rights of any average resident to keep and bear arms, without interference with this right.

The “news” media may call that lax, but to people who know, that’s called freedom, and it’s desirable. The left is increasingly the party that stands against individual freedom, with some parts of the right unfortunately not far behind.

Because the “news” media sets the tone of debate for the nation, people championing freedom and individual rights are cast as destructive, and must respond defensively. The truly destructive people, like the Bradys, are portrayed as the moral high ground — precisely opposite of reality.

This is what passes for an informed public. It’s no wonder the nation is in distress.

People who are against gun rights and other freedoms, or think a law that protects us from government interference is a bad thing, are in essence preaching socialism and dominance of the state over freedom of the individual.

This is wrong, and bad, by definition. Knowing what the Brady scores and “news” media really represents, activists in the state were pushing for a minus score.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ - -(Ammoland.com)- According to four BATFE agents familiar with the planned Fast and Furious gun-smuggling “fix,” the bureau plans to release a “demand letter” by the end of this week, insisting that gun dealers in the four Mexico-border states begin reporting multiple rifle sales to the bureau.

All multiple rifle sales made to the same buyer within a five-day period will have to be reported beginning on August 14, on a form to be announced, according to the agents. The order will exclude rifles in .22 caliber, and rifles without detachable magazines. The agents acknowledged that congressional action, lawsuits, an injunction or other court orders might forestall the implementation of the hastily concocted scheme. Such preventive measures are already underway.

The rumored executive order to require gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to begin reporting multiple rifle sales to BATFE will not be issued. A previous Page Nine report that referred to the expected EO now appears incorrect. It is possible that the uproar over the program caused the administration to change its approach, and put all the heat on BATFE to “enact” law without Congress. The EO was widely reported and anticipated.

An exhaustive examination of statutory authority under which BATFE is required to operate revealed no legitimate power to demand these records, though the agents claimed they do have authority (two younger ones said they have no control over the process, and were simply following along). When questioned if they would consider resigning if asked to implement an illegally introduced rule, the agents all either declined to answer or said no, they would not resign.

Because a buyer will have to be identified to show that the sales reflect purchase by one person, the record collections will be a gun registry tied to gun ownership, which is strictly forbidden under federal law. No requirement to destroy these records exists, since no authority to collect the records exists. The BATFE agents said they would not be keeping the records, because they “lack authority,” but could not identify a time frame in which the registry information would be destroyed, or any audit trail.

When pressed, the senior official identified a statute that supposedly conveyed authority for the daring plan. The citation is to 18 USC §923(g)(5)(A) which states:

“Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary in writing by the Attorney General, submit on a form specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.”

This does not confer the needed authority, because “all record information required to be kept by this chapter” does not include multiple sales of long guns to the same person in a five-day period. The agent disagreed. In fact, Congress specifically excluded such information when it enacted, by due process, a statute requiring similar information for handguns in the same law, in 18 USC §923(g)(3)(A):

“Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person.”

In addition to the creation of this illegal reporting requirement, illegal gun-owner registry, with unknown details and no public control over the rule-making process, it amounts to record keeping specifically banned under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, 18 USC §926(a)(2):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act [5/19/86] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

Like so many laws the federal government writes, this one declares that these acts cannot legally be done, but provides no specific punishment for perpetrators, such as those running this scheme inside BATFE. Laws could be written with teeth, to control bureaucrats.

Instead of saying, “No one may collect this information,” the law could say, “Anyone who collects this information shall go to prison and pay a fine.” Given the common abuses now prevalent in government, such laws have been needed for a long time, on a state and local level as well as federally, some legislators say.

Any legislator unwilling to draft laws that way, allowing “officials” to do whatever they please without consequence, deserve to be removed from office, according to leading experts.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Effort to Bypass Congress Is Illegitimate, Experts Say Similar Laws Have Required Bills, Open Debate and Recorded Votes.  The news Media is Asleep at the Wheel, Reporting Without Questioning. The Firearm Owners Protection Act Bans Such Proposals Altogether and Congress has Already Rejected Reporting for Long Guns.

If this stands up, limits on power fall apart — Is that the true goal of Project Gunrunner?

The effort by the Obama administration to establish new gun law by executive order is not a legal method for enacting law in the United States, according to Alan Korwin, a national expert on gun law and author of nine books on the subject. Other experts agree that such a measure requires an act of Congress, and cannot legitimately be implemented by executive order, as Mr. Obama is attempting to do.

“We already have rapid-reporting requirements for multiple firearm sales, for handguns,” Mr. Korwin notes, “and this required Congress to draft and enact a statute, which became federal law 18 U.S.C. §923(g). It’s not legal to create another similar law for long guns without Congress,” Korwin says.

When that law was changed to allow reporting of multiple handgun sales to local authorities, in addition to federal officials, that also required federal law, which was passed as part of the Brady bill. Congress had an opportunity to include long guns in those reporting requirements, and rejected it. Congress is the only entity with legitimate power to change that, Korwin and other experts say.

According to knowledgeable observers, a firearms bill like this would not make it through Congress, since the House is firmly in pro-gun-rights Republican hands. This may explain Obama’s effort to sidestep Congress and attempt to enact a gun law by decree instead of due process and open transparent deliberation.

“Mr. Obama knows such a bill would have no chance of passage in the current Congress. His attempt to avoid Congress is an affront to all Americans, regardless of where they stand on the gun-rights issue,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “Apparently the president is a fan of former Clinton advisor Paul Begala’s approach to government: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!”

A president who attempts to pass laws on his own is dangerous to the nation.

“If the administration can get away with this and enact new law without Congress, there is no practical limit on presidential exercise of power, a truly frightening development,” says Philip Van Cleave, a civil-rights activist and president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. “Even attempting to grab such power is a tyrannical act,” Van Cleave says.

No justification or rational is known that would allow such action regarding rifle sales, when the essentially same law for handguns required a bill and proper passage. This goes even one step further than Obama’s federal health care law, which then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass to learn what’s in it. That at least used Congress for an appearance of legitimacy, this bypasses Congress completely.

Equal treatment under the law would also be defeated by the move, since the attempt singles out dealers in only four states — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. One gun dealer, who refused to be identified, pointed out that this will force Mexico’s deadly vicious drug cartels to make their illegal straw purchases in the other 46 states.

Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Oklahoma are the next closest states to the Mexican border, and could conceivably see an uptick in the sales Obama claims he is trying to thwart. Those states would be under no obligation to report multiple sales, though licensed dealers are typically vigilant and report sales that seem suspicious, if for no other reason than to protect their licenses to operate.

“The whole scheme is preposterous,” says Kim Grady, a board member and national coordinator for Second Amendment Sisters. “Federal agents were the ones smuggling guns into Mexico in the first place, to bolster the numbers Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder were loudly promoting to build support for more gun control — even after their numbers were exposed as false,” Ms. Grady notes.

“The ATF-managed straw sales sales were repeatedly reported to ATF officials, who ignored the information. Now dealers will be required to do what they were already doing, to the rogue agency that ignored them? This has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with control.”

If a new law is needed, Grady said, it’s one to imprison federal agents who cooperate in gun smuggling, not more paperwork for honest and conscientious licensed business people.

According to ATF, the new edict will generate 18,000 reports in a year. It is unknown where the staff and money to handle such a load will come from, or how the information will be used. FOPA specifically bans collecting this information in any sort of federal facility.

According to Charles Heller, the newly appointed executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, “The ultimate aim of all regulations like the one in this executive order, is to make it so difficult for private citizens to own and shoot a gun, that they no longer bother to do so. This is EXACTLY what the Declaration of Independence, whose anniversary we just celebrated, refers to as ‘sending forth agents to eat out our substance.’”

Heller notes that, “In the recent Gunrunner debacle, the Obama administration attempted to pad the statistics of ‘crime guns’ going to Mexico from the U.S. This is a violation of several U.S. laws, committed by law enforcement agents who failed to refuse illegal orders. The solution is simple and straightforward — disarm the agents and decertify the agency as a law enforcement organization. Remove their badges, and give them business cards like any other bureaucrats. Turn them from jack-boots into gumshoes.”

According to published reports, Obama promised action on gun restrictions to long-time anti-rights activist Sarah Brady, saying they would come “under the radar,” after he got things properly positioned. It defies imagination to suggest that Project Gunrunner, and the Fast and Furious smuggling crimes were just fronts that had nothing to do with padding the numbers, gun smuggling, or even building political support for gun control.

“If that was just a smokescreen, all arranged so Mr. Obama could begin enacting gun law by decree instead of through Congress, now that would be one slick pre-planned political stratagem,” said author Korwin, adding, “I can’t believe he’s that clever, but it sure looks like he’s getting that result.”

The NRA has promised a lawsuit to fight the administration’s decree, about the only action short of impeachment that can be taken if a president acts outside the law. That case would be heard in federal courts, which operate under Obama’s Justice Dept. and AG Eric Holder, which have in the past mysteriously dismissed cases they did not like. Voter intimidation by a black panther in Philadelphia, for example, disappeared, even though the club-wielding perp was caught on videotape.

BACKGROUNDER

As early as Dec. 17, 2010, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that an effort was underway to create rifle-reporting requirements:

“An editorial in today’s Washington Post discussed the recent decision by ATF to require federally licensed firearms retailers along the Southwest border to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of most semi-automatic rifles. Specifically this would impact semi-automatic rifles that are larger than .22 caliber, capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.

“Though the Post supports this ill-advised proposal, it did acknowledge the legitimacy surrounding one of industry’s objections:

“When reports of its plan surfaced, the administration came under immediate attack from the gun rights lobby. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, argued that the administration lacked the legal authority to demand data on rifles and shotguns. It has a point: While Congress authorized the ATF to collect information on handgun sales, it declined to extend the requirement to long guns. A court is likely to be asked to decide whether demand letters may be used to shake loose this information ?” http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-require-multiple-sales-reports-for-long-guns/

NSSF continues to oppose multiple sales reporting of semi-automatic rifles. Such reporting requirements will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement. Traffickers will go further underground, hiring more people to buy their firearms. This will make it much harder for retailers to identify and report suspicious behavior to law enforcement. http://www.nssfblog.com/more-on-atf-multiple-sales-reporting/

NSSF would also like to remind all members of industry, sportsmen and gun owners to voice their concerns by doing the following:

• Call the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Department of Justice, Desk Officer at (202) 395-6466.
• E-mail Barbara A. Terrell, ATF, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov
• Call your Senators and Representative: United States Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

The NSSF reports that, “According to ATF, the average age of a firearm recovered in the United States is 11 years old. In Mexico it’s more than 14 years old. This demonstrates that criminals are not using new guns bought from retailers in the states.”

Congress, when it enacted multiple sales reporting for handguns, could have required multiple sales of long guns — it specifically chose not to.

The Washington Post reported on Dec. 17 of last year that, “The plan (to register rifles) by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revives a proposal that has languished at the Justice Department and in the Obama administration for several months, according to people with knowledge of the proposal… The idea of such a requirement is so controversial to many gun owners that administration officials proceeded cautiously for fear of provoking the National Rifle Association, sources said.”

The paper quoted Ted Novin, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who noted the timing after the election and said, “This is an ill-considered proposal and one that ATF does not have the legal authority to unilaterally impose.”

The Post also quoted NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox, “This administration does not have the guts to build a wall (on the border), but they do have the audacity to blame and register gun owners for Mexico’s problems,” Cox said. “NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics.”

The original idea, says the Post, was to label the operation as an emergency, and have ATF issue a “demand letter” to 8,500 dealers in the four border states requiring the new reports to a centralized federal facility.

When the NRA got wind of the idea back then, it warned its four million members in a “grassroots alert” that the administration might try to go around Congress to get such a plan enacted as an executive order or rule.

“Emergency approval would last six months, after which the requirement would end unless other action were taken, the draft states,” according to the Post. That time is now up and Obama has seen fit to attempt to continue the operation, in defiance of law and with disregard for Congress. http://tinyurl.com/6c37t97

>From the Firearm Owners Protection Act 18 USC §926 Rules and regulations

“The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter…

(3)… No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986) may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

This is a special report from The Uninvited Ombudsman, Alan Korwin, author of the Page Nine newsmedia watchblog. http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

Alan Korwin Bloomfield Press “We publish the gun laws.” 4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 Fax 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog (This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

• “Don’t be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom.”
• “No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” –Edmund Burke
• Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. –Abraham Lincoln

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- My co-author on Sunshine Gun Laws – a tongue-in-cheek list of great gun laws we ought to have – has just come up with another beauty. Rock on with your bad self, Mark Moritz!

If you can demonstrate (to the local sheriff, state police or other proper authority) that you have a good reason why you should not carry a gun, then after attending a 40-hour class, paying a fee, being fingerprinted and photographed, and having your background checked, you can get a card that says you have permission to not carry a gun.

Anyone caught not carrying a gun, without the permission slip to be unarmed, can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor. In any contact with a police officer, you must declare that you are unarmed, and you must show your permit. Failure to show the permit is a misdemeanor.

Showing bad attitude toward the officer is grounds for an additional charge of reckless endangerment, since going unarmed is known to aid and abet the criminal element. After enactment, newspapers are authorized to publish the names of all people who have no-gun permits, for safety.

This is not to be confused with the Gun-Free-Citizen Act, in which a person can, of their own free will, be permanently banned from even touching a gun, under penalty of felony arrest.

See all the Sunshine Gun Laws, www.gunlaws.com/sunshin.htm, some of which have actually been enacted. See also Model Firearms Legislation, seriously proposed, to advance our rights and the cause of freedom, suitable for any of the states in the Union. www.gunlaws.com/ModelLegislation.htm

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

This particular billboard is posted at Deer Valley Rd. and 16th Street, approaching the Deer Valley Airport. It escaped censorship because it is not a Phoenix bus stop.

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: The city of Phoenix has censored 50 ads for the educational program of a local gun-safety training association, TrainMeAZ.com. We oppose censorship in all its forms.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: Although the “news” media steadfastly censors news about firearms, self-defense cases, new firearm products, the shooting sports and basically anything that confirms that guns are good, save lives, stop crime, and help keep America free — the media is intolerant of censorship by government, and in this case it’s a good thing.

On May 11, the The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation filed a free-speech lawsuit against Phoenix. The city has until the end of the month to respond, seek a dismissal or default in the case. Experts agree the city faces serious hurdles, but it now looks like they will object to the suit, moving the case along.

The city changed its rules for bus-shelter advertising in March, after the censorship occured, but the new rules are pretty much just as vague as before, pose similar violations of free-speech guarantees and will not affect the suit. The new city rules for limiting speech in public are posted here, along with full background on the case: www.gunlaws.com/TMA-Lawsuit.htm

I expect the city to repeat its claim that advertising at a public transit shelter is a non-public place. It doesn’t make good sense, just like you I know that, but what do you expect from city (or any) government run by HINOs (humans in name only). That’s part of our challenge. After the city responds, we’ll have 40 days for the next step in the process.

Clint Bolick, the Scharf-Norton Center’s chief litigator, explained the problem in simple terms:

If you drive around the city of Phoenix, you’ll likely see at least one poster advertisement at a public bus shelter. Some ads show a juicy hamburger and the logo of a well-known fast-food restaurant. Other ads show tastefully designed wedding rings and the name of a jewelry story.

Imagine if a bureaucrat from the city of Phoenix woke up today and decided to pull down those ads because they don’t actually say “buy a hamburger” or a wedding ring. That happened last year to another local business, TrainMeAz; a website that connects customers with trainers to learn self-defense and marksmanship skills. The city of Phoenix removed the ads for TrainMeAz after they had been on display for a week because the public transit director decided they didn’t “propose a commercial transaction.”

Phoenix officials can oversee the content of advertising on city property to prevent obscene material or truly inappropriate messages. But the government has no business approving one company’s approach to advertising and rejecting another based on one bureaucrat’s view of what is a commercial transaction and what is not. The free speech protections of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution require the city to enforce clear and objective standards that treat advertisers in a fair and equal manner.

The Arizona Constitution protects free expression to a greater degree than the federal Constitution – it gives every person in the state the right to “freely speak, write and publish.” But the City’s ordinance permits only commercial speech at bus stops, prohibiting all other types of advertisements. This doesn’t comply with the state’s broad speech protections. In Arizona, the government may not favor one type of speech over other types.

Today the Goldwater Institute filed a legal challenge against the city of Phoenix for removing advertising for TrainMeAz at 50 Phoenix bus shelters in October 2010. The Phoenix Public Transit Department cannot explain how the TrainMeAz ads are substantially different than other posters that appear on bus stops including the jewelry store, the fast-food restaurant, and weekend gun shows.

The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents TrainMeAz LLC and company manager Alan Korwin. We are asking a judge to strike down the city rules that govern bus stop advertising so that new rules can be adopted that provide clear standards for the transit department to follow. As an alternative, the courts also could determine that TrainMeAz’s ads never should have been removed.

If this is left unchallenged, there’s a serious risk that bureaucrats will apply their own personal views to determine which ads are accepted or rejected, violating the First Amendment’s protection from arbitrary government censorship. For example, a vegetarian transit official could reject ads featuring hamburgers, or a conservative official could reject ads for businesses associated with liberal causes. Thanks to your support, we are defending the First Amendment rights of business owners.

Follow the case, read the pleadings, get news as it happens: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/korwinvcotton

FOX-TV Channel 15 in Phoenix did a lopsided story about the case, and it’s nice to be on the lop side for a change, even if it violates ethical journalism. How many ethical violations can you spot in the video?

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

At a subconscious level, anything the mainstream pronounces is taken as the “official” version.

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Got your attention? Ok .. I’ve figured out why the “mainstream” commands so much power:

The public (including you) unknowingly gives the mainstream its power, because at a subconscious level, anything the mainstream pronounces is taken as the “official” version.

Everything else then is an argument, a debating point, an alternate reality — and must compete with the mainstream “official” version for belief. The mainstream commands a win-lose from the get-go.

It is the “compared to” effect. Whatever you set up as the comparison is the automatic winner, the compare-to item is the flat-out loser. “Black people are as good as white people,” is the perfect example. It may sound fair and balanced, but its outrageous bias is obvious when you say instead, “White people are as good as black people.” The thing compared is inferior by default. But it’s a hidden bias, and slips right on through. “Female soldiers are as good as male soldiers.”

You get the point?

If the New York Times, or the TV networks or CNN, or other standard bearers of mainstream thought were to make a non-mainstream statement even once –it would become the official version. All other thought would have to be compared against it, and suffer the fate of the compared-to viewpoint.

Imagine if the Times, or the Washington Post, were to run these stories on the front page, how this would change the mindset, the paradigm, the groundwork for debate in the nation:

• “New Study Confirms Illegal Immigration Costly, Crime Ridden,” or
• “White House Announces Guns DO Deter Crime, Encourages Training,” or
• “Federal Reserve is Damaging Economy, Needs Overhaul,” or
• “Global Warming In Doubt, Carbon Effect Exaggerated,” or
• “Experts Confirm Muslims Are At War With Western Civilization,” or
• “Loss of Morality and Religion Increasing, Harming Nation.”

Think what that would do. The vast majority of the public understands the truth of those headlines, they would be exonerated, and would hold the high ground. The truth deniers would be backpedaling so hard they would fall and get bad boo boos.

The ACLU would have to begin an uphill campaign against those ideas, instead of the uphill battle the center-right coalition now faces. The whole texture and demeanor of the country and the debate would flip. Leftists and socialists would be on the short end of the stick, and conservatives and libertarians would gain immeasurable sway and power. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Because the mainstream is not going to voluntarily adopt these views, the best course seems to be to make them increasingly irrelevant, through reduced audience, and increased reliance on everything but them for news and views. In essence, this makes the Internet an extreme threat to the existing power structure, and we can expect it to come under increasing attack and efforts at control — taxation, filters, content edicts, privacy snooping, unfairness doctrines and non-neutrality called neutrality. My new book, Bomb Jokes at Airports, addresses these issues.

P.S. It’s not about “carbon footprint” — it’s about “carbon-dioxide footprint” — the stuff plants need to survive and thrive, a cornerstone of life, the stuff you exhale. Big difference. Remember the people selling “carbon offsets”? Write a check to them and you can take a flight without guilt, believing trees would be planted somewhere with your money? It was such an outrageous scam even when it was running full bore. Now, it is such a scam it’s almost in hiding (there are vendors on the web but little else). The gullibility (and self guilt) of some parts of the public is so huge, it suggests people should need to qualify before they can vote, or breathe.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Paul Helmke, ringleader of the aggressive Brady Anti-Gun gang, released this statement about the “bipartisan” gun-control meeting the White House scheduled.

(Note: The “White House” is a building and can’t do anything; the person responsible in that building remains unidentified but appears to be Steve Croley) The meeting only included people who want to ban guns, an indicator of the plans, according to unidentifiable experts.

“On Tuesday, I attended a meeting at the U.S. Department of Justice with representatives from the White House, the Vice-President’s office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the FBI, and others from the Obama Administration, along with leaders from the gun violence prevention movement, to discuss how to reach the goals outlined in the President’s statement. Officials from the Administration indicated that this was the first of what they hoped would be a series of discussions. They said they had not settled on, or excluded, any relevant proposals.

“I began the discussion by listing basic measures that the Brady Campaign, and others, felt could make a difference. The list included: a strong background check system, with good and complete records of dangerous and irresponsible people, applicable to all commercial gun sales; more tools for law enforcement to stop trafficking in illegal guns; increasing the number and type of military-style weapons, including “assault clips,” that should not be readily available to civilians, like machine-guns and fully automatic weapons. Administration officials then asked questions. My colleagues and I gave examples and arguments for legislative, administrative, and voluntary policies that could help reduce the bloodshed.

“The meeting lasted more than 90 minutes. Having this many Administration representatives spend this much time on this initial meeting signaled to me that the president is serious. He wants to do something meaningful about gun violence. After meeting with others, including law enforcement and “gun rights” groups [note: no such meetings are known to have been held], Obama’s representatives will be presenting specific proposals. We hope those will include all the “sound and effective steps” that the president called for in his statement.”

No word has leaked on what or how the anti-rights leaders will attempt to implement their programs. Rumors are swirling that every effort will be made to avoid going through Congress, since it is well recognized that the peoples’ representatives there will not tolerate rights denial programs. Avoiding Congress would be a travesty bordering on treason, but since it is just one of many such moves, objections might be slight, and arrests of the perpetrators seem unlikely.

One leading gun-rights advocate, who was not invited to the “open” discussions, opined, “A seat at the table would be good, but only if used to present reasonable ideas — gun curricula, self-defense protections, justice for civil-rights violators (just injecting civil rights into the lexicon would be good), gun-free zones vs. make-believe gun-free zones, the debilitating effects of hoplophobia and failure to recognize or treat the sufferers, and have the antis dismiss such common-sense measures; also a chance to stand against the anti-rights movement and cast them as such. I’m not sure which gun-rights leader is best suited to that. I’d love to have a crack at it, but I wasn’t invited.” An opportunity to do any of that was considered unlikely.

There are serious issues American gun owners want discussed, such as restoration of rights, national concealed-carry reciprocity, cracking down on states like New Jersey, New York and California that routinely violate gun owners rights, lifting the administration’s ban on importation of historic WWII-era rifles, reining in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, especially the Phoenix office and its Fast and Furious and GunWalker operations, and the nomination of anti-gun rights Andrew Traver to head BATFE.

Plans to strip Americans of their guns, either in whole cloth or with a thousand cuts, are deep secrets at both the center of the U.S. government, and at the United Nations, which are known to be working in concert to attain those goals. We’ll be watching.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Ph.D. researcher John Lott, author of More Guns Less Crime, www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm has examined NICS and found that it is not what it’s cracked up to be. Based on his report:

“NICS accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun. A similar problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he was placed on a no-fly list. An initial denial does not mean an individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun.”

Using those initial denials to draw conclusions would violate every principle of accuracy, but it hasn’t stopped anti-rights bigots from bragging about how good NICS is.

Take the numbers for 2008, the latest available. There were 78,906 initial denials. But of those, only 5,573, or 7%, were referred to BATFE for further investigation. So what about all the rest of the denials?

A report by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (73,333 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” Lott makes this clear — “To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.”

Relax, it gets worse. Of the 5,573 referred for review, over 44%, (2,472), involve “delayed denials,” meaning a check hasn’t been completed. Only 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun.

“But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved ‘no potential or unfounded’ violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%,” according to Dr. Lott.

Up until this point, the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included in the numbers. But of these 4,400 cases, only 147 seemed serious enough to refer to prosecutors. Of those 147, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 times. Bottom line, 78,906 NICS denials yielded 105 cases, about a tenth of a percent, and that’s without knowing if anyone was found guilty.

At least, the system only costs us hundreds of millions of dollars.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Staunch pro-gun writer Alan Korwin has come up with a very handy and effective “talking points” list.

If confronted by the hysteria driven rhetoric of magazine bans, especially based upon the Arizona lunacy of Jared Loughner, we highly recommend you have Alan’s rebuttals close at hand.

Please print out this article and pass it around to gun shops, shooting ranges, and at gun shows. We all need to wield pointed and effective responses to the gun grabbers’ hysterical blathering and phony hand wringing. If we remain silent they will win. ~ Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Depriving the public of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided, puts you at risk, and at its core, is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines—in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals.

Legislators asked me to prepare this list.

The Crux

• By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shooters you jeopardize everyone’s safety.
• Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic.
• Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two?
• Are they saying it’s OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense.
• Would you make police obey the same limit? Why not?

Parity with Police: The public faces the same criminals police do. Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use: The public is always first at the scene.

• If you can’t justify impeding the police with ammunition limits, you cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.
• What’s needed to stop rampages is not another law written on paper, but speedier law enforcement, or any armed people who can respond.
• A criminal can’t legally have a magazine of any size. A law restricting size adds nothing.

None of these arguments matter to the opposition. People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll, using the Tucson assassinations for momentum. They want any kind of gun bans they can get, regardless of crime fighting, public safety, logic or reason. They are emotionally compromised.

• Limiting the amount of ammunition a person has for self defense is dangerous.
• The only way to stop a lethal attack is with countervailing force.
• The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public, but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible.
• People are always the first responders. Police are second responders. We face the same criminals. We both need the best tools we can get.
• We know laws banning murder and armed criminals don’t stop criminals. Why would you want to do more of the same when you know it doesn’t work? (Because it’s a hoplophobic response, not a rational one.)
• Will magazine-size bans feel good, as if you’re really doing something? Yes. Will they actually do something? No.
• Infringing on the size of a magazine doesn’t stop crazy people. Imagining that it somehow will, now that’s crazy.
• An infringed-capacity magazine violates your civil rights.

Reasoning

• Will a magazine limit stop a murderer from carrying several guns? Of course not.
• Will it prevent swapping out magazines? How do you propose controlling that?
• Infringing on magazine size has no effect on the millions of magazines already out there.
• Limiting the public doesn’t limit criminals. It just limits the public.

Trying to stop crime or crazy people by limiting magazine size can’t work. We tried that, for ten years under Clinton’s size ban. It’s a proven failure. The NY Times admitted this in no uncertain terms. www.gunlaws.com/NewYorkTimesAndGuns.htm

• The public should have at least as much ammunition as police can have.
• Because people face the same criminals police do, we honestly need equal gear.
• Attacking the right to an uninfringed magazine because of one assassin is a political game, not a meaningful solution to homicidal rampages.
• Using a tragic homicidal assault for leverage against civil rights is reprehensible.
• Using tragedy to advance a political agenda aimed at incrementally disarming the public is the ugliest underbelly of politics. It’s shameful.

Killing Is Fun! Someone has to say it—With constant Technicolor promotion of “the thrill of killing” from Hollywood and TV, we can expect another homicidal rampage. We must be ready to stop it when it inevitably occurs.

They’re not deranged, they’re imitating –
With Hollywood and the networks glorifying immoral behavior, portraying killers as heroes to be emulated, and mourned when put down, it’s false to classify copycat crimes as mental disease.

The proper response to the recognition that people can go berserk and cause mayhem is to foster a culture of marksmanship.

• From army posts to grocery stores, homicidal attacks take place in make-believe gun free zones. Paper signs do not deter murderers.
• A phony gun-free zone made by posting a sign may feel good, but it has been repeatedly proven to be dangerous and negligent.
• A person who posts a no-guns-allowed sign should be liable if it causes harm. See the model legislation at gunlaws.com. http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm
• Murderous carnage has nothing to do with magazine size and everything to do with opportunity. Crowds of unarmed people offer murderers a field day.
• If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn’t be any.
• Laws do not stop crime. Law enforcement stops crime.

It’s time to broadly promote National Training Week from July 4 through 11, when all Americans are encouraged to go to the range and practice. Details at gunlaws.com. http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm

It’s time to consider a tax break or tax credit to encourage people to go to the range and improve their readiness and skills.

Millions of 30-round and larger magazines are not used for killing, they’re used at ranges, which is where most legal gun use is conducted.

• Attacks on magazines are attacks on ranges, the home court for the Second Amendment, the bottom line on legal gun use.
• Attacks on magazines are attacks on the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.
• Disarm criminals first.

Politically Corrected Glossary

• Always frame the debate as pro rights vs. anti rights, never as pro gun vs. anti gun, which yields ground to the antis.
• This is a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights.
• Always talk about discreet carry, a cultural and civilized norm, never about concealed carry, which sounds like you have something to hide.
• Always refer to personal sidearms, a neutral and non-inflammatory term, never to handguns, a word that has been vilified beyond usefulness.
• Remember that assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware. The media loves that word because it spins the debate to their liking, and makes firearms automatically bad, instead of true focus on bad actors.
• Always ask a person who questions assault weapon possession what guns they’re talking about exactly. They do not know.
• Any weapon you can own is an ordinary household firearm, the type you might find in any American household.

Don’t waste time and audience attention correcting ignorant reporters who talk about clips or bullets. Let them remain self-evidently ignorant. See the entire Glossary at gunlaws.com

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

Gun Talk Radio

MANDEVILLE, LA --(Ammoland.com)- It’s championship shooting, reloading, what to do after you shoot and more, this week on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk (R) Radio, the only nationally-syndicated radio talk show about guns and the shooting sports. It’s a full slate, and the guests this week cover the full spectrum in shooting.

Cheaper than Dirt’s Andrew Sypien talks with show host Tom Gresham Sunday about the company that sells everything from ammo and reloading supplies to holsters and optics, and now, firearms.

Bill Barrett, Operations Manager at Tapco, Inc. stops by Gun Talk to talk with Tom. Tapco moved from a retail company to a wholesale company a few years ago, allowing them to focus on the U.S. manufacturing of components for shotguns and rifles, including AKs, ARs, and SKSs.

Shotgun shell reloading is big, and getting bigger as shooters discover the huge cost savings they can enjoy by “rolling their own” ammo. Dave Kern, with MEC Reloaders, explains how to get into reloading, what it costs, and exactly how much money shooters save. When pressed, though, Dave has been known to admit that rather than save money, after they take up handloading, many shotgunners just shoot more for the same money.

Alan Korwin, owner and operator of Gunlaws.com and Bloomfield Press, has authored another book, After You Shoot. The 13th book penned by Korwin, After You Shoot examines the questions of what one should do after a self-defense shooting has occurred – from calling 911 to what to say to the police. His advice is controversial, to say the least, but it’s sure to give listeners much to think about.

As a member of Team Springfield, Rob Leatham knows all the Springfield Armory products, and has the scoop on what’s new for 2011. He’ll be announcing some new guns from Springfield, which will also be featured on the Gun Talk Television.

About:
Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk Radio is in its 15th year of national syndication, Gun Talk Radio airs live on Sundays from 2PM-5PM Eastern, and runs on 101 stations, plus SIRIUS XM Satellite Radio. All Gun Talk shows can be downloaded as podcasts through Apple iTunes, the Gun Talk iPhone App, the Blackberry Podcast App, or at www.guntalk.libsyn.com. More information is available at www.guntalk.com.

Firearms industry message torn down and billboard Ads Removed Without Notice.

Gunlaws.com

Phoenix, Az --(Ammoland.com)- It’s official. Gun safety has been censored.

After rounds of meetings and phone calls, the city of Phoenix, perhaps prophetically on Election Day, Tue., Nov. 2, passed final judgment and decided that censorship of our bus-stop advertisements would remain final. “Educate Your Kids” with the big red “Guns Save Lives” heart, which they tore down more than a week ago, were deemed unacceptable and would stay down. They blamed CBS Outdoor with the “error” for having put them up.

WorldNetDaily columnist Jeff Knox describes it perfectly — http://tiny.cc/y3vfy

We have a few options:

1. Tuck our tails between our legs, admit defeat, and promote the cause of gun safety, education and marksmanship elsewhere, denying cash-strapped Phoenix of revenue;
2. Write new ads in the hope that the city will approve of our words — but without clear guidelines on what the city will accept, and leaving us subject to their arbitrary case-by-case decision making, with unknown delays between our submission and their decrees;
3. Sue the bastages.

The third option is only on the table because the Goldwater Institute believes this is a well-positioned case to finally challenge the Phoenix speech-restriction codes. The city’s ongoing policies of speech suppression, bureaucratic control of speech, inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement, and lack of clear guidelines have attracted the attention of two other leading public-policy law firms, The Institute for Justice, and Judicial Watch. A number of private-practice attorneys have also expressed desire to join the fray. Support for action from the public has been uniformly positive — thank you all for that.

The city claims this has nothing to do with guns, and in fact proposed a version of our ad that included the big red “Guns Save Lives” heart. But they turned the meaning of our ad literally upside down.

Who do they think they are, anyway, re-writing our ad?

Where does that authority come from? That version also censored every word of our text, which you can read on the bottom of our website home page http://www.trainmeaz.com.

It begins:

“In Arizona, marksmanship matters. ‘The Train-Me State’ knows that a nation, trained to arms, is an American linchpin of freedom, and is respected in Arizona like nowhere else. The Arizona legislature has enacted vibrant protection of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We in Arizona seem destined to set models for the nation-in this case, a shining example of gun rights for all free peoples of the Earth.” Read the rest — http://www.trainmeaz.com

The city claims this amounts to a public-service announcement (PSA), and PSAs are forbidden by those who would dictate speech rules in city government, another point Goldwater seeks to challenge. Where does the city find its authority to ban PSAs? I asked. They couldn’t say exactly. But they did note that if they allowed such speech, other people could post announcements too, and some bus riders “might be offended” by this.

To avoid this terrible consequence of free speech, only ads that “propose commercial transactions” are allowed. The city masterminds (one man actually, their attorney who failed to attend our meeting), believe “Educate Your Kids,” with a website that provides trainers and ranges, is not commercial enough. So our headline text died along with our text message:

Guns Save Lives Arizona Says: Educate Your Kids TrainMeAZ.com

Incensed by this treatment, the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association president, Noble Hathaway, convinced Phoenix city councilman Sal DiCiccio to arrange a meeting with the Phoenix city manager, the head of the dept. of transportation Debbie Cotton, a handful of other city officials, and our sponsors, four of whom were available on the day (Dave Kopp of AZCDL, Kim Grady of Second Amendment Sisters, Noble and Gary Christensen of ASRPA, and myself, plus an attorney from the Goldwater Institute).

We met in the palatial new city hall on the 11th floor. I had no idea we built such a monument to city government with our taxes. I’ve worked for many large companies, Fortune 500s and all. Very few people work in such glorious and opulent surroundings. That was an eye opener in itself. But I digress.

I thought for sure that city manager David Cavazos got the message when I asked if our ad would be more commercial if it said, “Educate Your Kids, Dial 1-800-SOANDSO,” and he nodded. So what’s the difference if in the year 2010 we use a website instead of an old-fashioned landline? My read of his face and the tenor of the room was that they got it.

Turns out I was wrong.

With all the legal eagles contacting us about the city’s humiliating rejection of our words, our signed contract and the arbitrary actions taken without notice or legal process, it sure looks like we have a good case. I half expected the city to come crawling back with an apology and a reversal. Instead they postponed, repeatedly promised an answer, missed one self-imposed deadline after another, left me high and dry expecting phone calls, and finally said you’re out of luck, your words are banned, have a nice day. But don’t worry, it has nothing to do with guns or the right to keep and bear arms. Right.

Can the city tell you what you can say at a public transit bus stop, by claiming it’s a “non-public forum” (that’s their precise claim)? Does that even make sense? Can they say our commercial message, approved by their commercial licensee CBS Outdoor, paid for by a commercial outfit like TrainMeAZ, LLC, with commercial sponsors, seeking to educate kids and parents by paid professionals, is not commercial, and get away with it?

What do you think we’re going to do? This will take about a week or two. Sit tight, you won’t be disappointed.

Alan.

Firearms industry message torn down and billboard Ads Removed Without Notice.

Gunlaws.com

Scottsdale, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The city of Phoenix, in an apparently arbitrary move and without formal legal process, has forced CBS Outdoors to tear down 50 illuminated bus-shelter billboards under contract to promote gun safety training for children and their parents.

The posters were placed by TrainMeAZ.com, a commercial joint-educational effort of the firearms industry in Arizona, and had been up all over the Phoenix metro area for a little over one week before the city acted.

“The Phoenix attorney’s office claimed these were public service announcements, and those are banned,” said Alan Korwin, manager of the TrainMeAZ campaign and the Publisher at Bloomfield Press, a sponsor of the program.

“It’s a bogus excuse — and they know full well we’re an LLC and not a non-profit. The commercial sponsors, shooting ranges and trainers on the website expect to attract customers. The ads are aimed at parents, so they can teach gun safety and the values of marksmanship to their kids,” he said.

“We’re promoting a culture of marksmanship, where everyone learns to shoot and understands gun safety.”

Assistant Phoenix city attorney Ted Mariscal claimed in a conference call with Mr. Korwin and CBS Outdoor that the billboards weren’t commercial enough, the message was too vague, and then demanded the message be changed to his satisfaction.

When pressed for a definition of what is either sufficiently commercial or what defines a public service ad, he declined to respond, referring instead to a 12-year-old 9th Circuit court case concerning a religious group (Children of the Rosary) and abortion ads. CBS is designing new art to please the city, but without guidelines of what’s acceptable, there’s no way to predict the result, and the TrainMeAZ campaign isn’t exactly keen on this approach.

Mariscal offered to provide the case he says matters, and the lease agreement he says allows the city to remove the ads. The case is now under review. No lease agreement has been provided, and the city apparently has no definitions in place, apparently leaving Mr. Mariscal to act on his own unfettered accord. Nothing in the city’s advertising guidelines, provided by Mr. Mariscal, appear to justify the censored ads.

In the meanwhile, TrainMeAZ is losing more than 800,000 impressions per day it had been receiving through this Phase One of the campaign. A bulletin billboard with a similar message and goal remains up on Interstate 17, through another company. It gets about 135,000 eyes driving by daily (facing southbound traffic near Peoria exit). Several outdoor advertisers have contacted TrainMeAZ in an effort to pick up the lost business for themselves. CBS has offered a slate of city billboards to replace the messages the city has banned.

“Mariscal has offered to approve some other advertisements to replace the ones we designed at great expense and want,” Korwin said.

“We’ll be reasonable and look, but we don’t exactly want the city of Phoenix writing our advertisements for us. If anything is absolutely an affront to free speech and the First Amendment, there it is on a platter. Who do these people think they are?”

Government should stay out of the way of businesses trying to make it in these tough economic times, or in any times. Instead, government has become one of the biggest obstacles we face, Korwin noted. It’s bad enough Phoenix has attacked our free speech, but now they’re messing with our Second Amendment rights, and right before an election too. People who support this ought to be removed from office and punished for such malfeasance.

Legislators aware of the problem have expressed outrage at the censorship effort by the city, and are preparing a plan of action. More news will follow soon.

The program is an outgrowth of the Constitutional Carry law, effective in July this year, that frees all law abiding adults in Arizona to discreetly carry firearms. With the audience expanding from 2% of the public willing to apply and pay for a government permission slip to carry, to 50% of the public that possesses firearms, private industry figured this 25-fold increase in potential market was worth attracting.

Mr. Korwin will be at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show this weekend at the University of Phoenix stadium in Glendale, where he will autograph books and answer questions.

Click “Billboards” here to see the message banned by city of Phoenix.

TrainMeAZ CONTRIBUTING SPONSORS include (thus far):

• Arizona Citizens Defense League

  http://www.azcdl.org

• Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association

  http://www.asrpa.com

• Caswells

  http://www.caswells.com

• Crossroads of the West Gun Shows

  http://www.crossroadsgunshows.com

• Front Sight

  http://www.frontsight.com

• GalleryOfGuns.com

  http://www.galleryofguns.com

• GunLaws.com

  http://www.gunlaws.com

• Gunsite

  http://www.gunsite.com

• Second Amendment Sisters

  http://www.2asisters.net

• Wide World of Maps

  http://www.maps4u.com

(Alan Korwin, AzCDL Member and prolific author, whose books include The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, has been following the McDonald v. Chicago case closely. Alan’s extensive research and material were used in crafting AzCDL’s amicus brief for this case. The following is Alan’s synopsis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision.)

Arizona Citizens Defense League

Catalina, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The big headline in the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban-case decision, handed down on June 28, 2010, is that the states are now bound by the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” under the 14th Amendment and applies to the states, under the Due Process clause used to apply other Bill of Rights requirements to the states.

Exactly how bound the states are is unknown, and will be the subject of endless debate and future court actions. No standard of review for acceptable laws is provided, although the extremely low and virtually meaningless standard of “interest balancing” that Breyer would like to see is apparently off the table. This leaves legislatures and lower courts to pretty much do as they please, and seek further SCOTUS clarification in the years to come.

The decision does however give the pro-rights forces a strong leg up at the bargaining table.

The very troubling sub-head of the story is that Chicago apparently will be free to act like Washington, D.C. did after Heller. Chicago under Mayor Daley is likely to do everything it can – including maneuvers that will be totally rejected as unconstitutional -- to keep its people repressed and deny, as fully as possible, the right to own, have and use guns for personal defense and other lawful purposes.

While we on the pro-rights side of the aisle had hoped for “reversed,” meaning the 7th Circuit decision saying we had no rights would be overturned, what we got was “reversed and remanded,” meaning the 7th Circuit will get another crack at the law, and do something to make it acceptable. If precedent is any gauge, they’ll do as little as they can, and be subject to another lawsuit and endless wrestling with our rights.

This extraordinarily event-filled day at the Court included Justice Stevens’ last day in public as a member, Justice Ginsburg’s husband’s death the night before, the beginning of Senate confirmation hearings for liberal High Court candidate Elena Kagan, and the much awaited McDonald decision, on this the last day of the current session.

Although some people had held out hope that Sotomayor, in her first gun case, would lean on her known respect for civil rights and find for the right to keep and bear, she turned out to be the leftist most expected, and voted for denial of rights in the 5-4 squeaker decision. She joined Breyer’s dissent, a masterpiece of odd reasoning and lack of appreciation for this fundamental right (based on a very quick overview). Kagan, cut from similar cloth, is likely to respond similarly if confirmed.

The McDonald v. Chicago decision is a 214-page document, with a six-page syllabus (the summary that precedes decisions), a 45-page decision of the Court written by Justice Alito, a 15-page concurrence by Scalia, a separate 56-page concurrence by Thomas, and two dissents — 57 pages from Stevens, and 31 pages from Breyer (joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor), who includes a four-page appendix. That’s a lot of reading (116 pages of “you have rights,” 92 pages of “you should not”), and by the time you see this, news organizations will have moved on to other subjects, but I will have just finished figuring out what the Court actually said.

About:
AzCDL believes that the emphasis of gun laws should be on criminal misuse and that law-abiding citizens should be able to own and carry firearms unaffected by unnecessary laws or regulations. AzCDL was founded by a group of local activists who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As a like-minded coalition of activists, the AzCDL founders were instrumental in the successful passage of the first major improvement to Arizona’s CCW (concealed carry) laws since they were instituted in 1994. Visit: www.azcdl.org

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: [Late breaking news: The Disclose Act was killed by Pelosi three days ago, but the story and aftermath remain instructive]: Democrats are seeking to pass a bill called the DISCLOSE Act, that would do damage to free speech and force powerful political groups to use big chunks of their air time identifying their donors and leaders.

The bill seemed doomed, but only because the powerful gun lobby objected to such encroachment on their right to free speech. The problem was solved however when clever democrats amended the bill to let the NRA off the hook – while keeping chains on virtually all other political-interest groups.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
First, recognize that a Congress that would do such a thing -- write a law that exempts one single group so the law can be passed – is as corrupt as anything you can name. While it’s good that the NRA’s right to free speech is not infringed, it is an abomination that Congress would do that to any other group under any rationale whatsoever. All groups deserve the same exemptions, namely, the entire bill should die (and as noted at the beginning, it did… for now).

Placing draconian burdens on political speech is tyranny.

Identifying players in the political theater might be acceptable, but burdening their free speech to do so is not a legitimate option. Congress, or at least the party behind this, deserves a face slap and leg irons.

In one sense though, carving out an exemption for the NRA was a good thing.

In the backhanded dirty dealings of modern U.S. politics it may have been planned to get the result it did, death to the bill, by deep insiders who play these dangerous games. It showed the democrat leaders for the conniving deceitful beasts they are, and raised a firestorm against them — not so much from their opponents, which they expected of course, but from their own members who revolted en masse! Are some politicians laughing at the morass? I sure am.

One of the best things the NRA has accomplished receives little recognition and less praise. Sure, they’ve fixed, bolstered, introduced and enhanced laws that improve the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, they have held the forces of darkness at bay, especially at the federal level where no one else does that job with as much pull. Of course they pour support into the state associations and local battles that are crucial to preserving the Second Amendment on a practical, every day level.

But the NRA is responsible for moving the public mindset, for challenging and changing the debate in the court of popular opinion, in a way all the smaller players could not.

People everywhere are more accepting now that a woman is entitled to protect herself from assault. That every home owner has the right to defend the family castle. Oh, the lamestream media has been slow to arrive at these self-evident truths, but America now largely accepts the idea of discreetly carried firearms, by responsible adults, even if the Cro-Magnon media thinks of it as Cro-Magnon.

Hopelessly bogus myths that our sacred right to keep and bear would lead to blood in the streets have crashed and burned. Gone is the fabricated silliness that “the right of the people” is a collective right of no one at all – thanks in large measure to decades of NRA-supported research that led to the Heller case victory.

When we look at NRA-backed individual state and federal bills that might not please us totally, we need to always see the larger picture.

The constant pressure NRA brings to bear against the anti-rights bigots in society is a steamroller suppressing the forces of evil, without which our gun rights would be a pale shadow of what they are, if they even existed at all.

Here is some of what the NRA would have been burdened with, if the Democrats had not (stupidly?) amended the bill. Most other groups would have suffered under these burdens if Democrats got away with their plan (and I don’t for a second believe the plan is altogether abandoned):

• Prohibit any organization that has one $50,000 or higher contract with the federal government from engaging in political speech (bill language as introduced);
• Require NRA to list top donor and top 5 donors on all election mass mailings, no exception for member mail;
• Require NRA to put CEO and top donor on all robocalls, no exception for member calls;
• Require NRA to put CEO and top 5 donors on all election TV ads;
• Require NRA to put CEO and top 2 donors on all election radio ads;
• Require NRA to put CEO and top donors on all internet election ads that NRA pays to put on other websites;
• Require NRA to disclose all donors $600 and higher to FEC for all independent expenditures;
• Require NRA to disclose all donors $1,000 and higher to FEC for all electioneering communications;
• Require NRA to put a hyperlink on its website within 24 hours after FEC posts electioneering reports to the exact FEC page where NRA’s report appears and keep link live for one year after election day;

For donors who don’t want their contributions spent on campaign activity, would require the NRA CFO to certify to them in writing within 30 days of their donation that their money wasn’t spent on campaign activity.

P.S. A decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case (supported by the NRA, SAF, ISRA and a long list of other rights activists including Bloomfield Press), that would force states to comply with the Second Amendment, is expected between now and the last day of the session, June 28 (smart money says it will be the last statement on the last day).

Gunlaws.com

Scottsdale, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)- There is one reason Arizona pasted Constitutional Firearms Carry and one reason only why this got done – The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.

It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights. www.azcdl.org

One other tidbit — the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that’s putting it mildly, and I can’t say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.

They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media’s favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.

I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.

Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They’ll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it’s the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you’re at it. www.appleseedinfo.org

Gunlaws.com

Scottsdale, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)- Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?

A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated — that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law’s requirements can apply. Shame on the “news media” that has repeatedly said otherwise.

Q: What’s the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?

A: There’s no difference, they’re just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution’s provision that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired…”. Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).

Q: If people can just carry guns, won’t crime and gun problems skyrocket?

A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any “skyrocketing” problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn’t change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related — but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.

It’s commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.

Q: Can anyone carry a gun?

A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. “Prohibited possessors” — criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner — under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)

Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?

A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is not eliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.

Q: Won’t people shoot each other if they’re not required to take the training?

A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they’re doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they’re doing just fine. The idea that you’re only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.

If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).

Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they’re fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.

Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?

A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It’s almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.

Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?

A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.

Arizona Enacts "Constitutional Carry" For Firearms

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)- With governor Jan Brewer’s signature on the new “Constitutional Carry” firearm law, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.

Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of “blood in the streets” preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as “Freedom To Carry,” appears on AmmoLand.com following this article.

Arizona’s extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.

The intrusive government “permit” system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise “rights” is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state’s population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called “fees.”

“This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people,” said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. “The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties.” A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.

The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.

“Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law”, said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, the book that describes the state’s gun laws in plain English. “Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We’re anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide,” he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.

“We sold The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business,” Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book’s publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. www.gunlaws.com

The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under “reciprocity,” which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).

In addition, since permitees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government “authorization” card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.

Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn’t ban possession and the person doesn’t drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.

Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. “Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed,” according to the California-based civil rights group, crpa.org.

Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- This case was way more complicated than Heller.

Both attorneys faced hostility from the bench. Chicago’s lawyer got hit from all sides with little in the way of what you might call support. But the surprise was the way Alan Gura got blasted, even by the best friend gun-rights has up there, Justice Scalia.

Whoever or however we believed the Court might be ready to review the Privileges or Immunities clause of 14A was totally wrong. Every Justice had problems with the scope of such a decision, and poor Gura had to withstand withering assaults on his reasoning and approach.

I definitely need a transcript to go over what exactly happened, I thought audio was weak in chambers, complexity was way large, and in chatter afterwords found I wasn’t the only one.

How those aging Justices keep up — and they did, note for note, cite for cite — is a bloody miracle.

BOTTOM LINE
It looks like the Heller majority may hold together for this case, and the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states, under the familiar selective incorporation of Due Process. The same 2A that controls federal activity will apply to the states, no more, no less, though that issue of degree got a lot of attention. Not that the scope of 2A is all the well defined, but there was animus to the idea that incorporation would yield a “shadow” version for the states.

Gura may get the win, but not for any brilliant strategic planning — there was open hostility to the idea, central to his arguments, of 2A being a Privilege or Immunity of citizenship (I’ll discuss soon). The win, if there is one, may be more of a result of the bench being unprepared to treat 2A as some special bastard child the states do not have to follow, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights that has been incorporated so far.

And let me tell you, thank God for the NRA. They took a lot of heat for asking for and getting some of Gura’s oral argument time, using Paul Clement who had argued the government’s unsavory position for a low standard of scrutiny in Heller, getting their hat in the ring.

That turned out to be baloney, they were life savers. Considering the ferocity with which Gura and P&I were attacked, we were lucky to have at elegant, articulate, eloquent voice to apply 2A through Due Process. (Don’t get me wrong, Chicago fared just as poorly, but for different reasons.)

Clement’s arguments were so well made and so compelling, he got to speak at length without interruption, with the Justices in rapt attention. I asked him about that afterwords and he said yeah, it was really nice getting some “air time.”

There’s so much more to tell, the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process, and the – un-frickin-believable – lengthy consideration by the Justices of how much RKBA we’d enjoy if there was “no Second Amendment” (protected instead as a privilege or immunity), plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general (“guns kill!”), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns… it’ll have to be later (been on the go since 5:30 a.m), probably when I return to Phoenix, beginning of next week.

It was an honor and a thrill witnessing it all.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

People Lining Up for McDonald v. Chicago

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- I’m back in my hotel, having endured the weather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, anticipating oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago in the a.m., the case that will decide the standing of our Second Amendment rights in the 50 states.

Well, people are lining up all right. Young people who can withstand it.

It’s bitter cold with a 20 MPH wind, but if you’ve decided to come here for the latest most seminal gun-rights case imaginable that’s not going to stop you.

At 5PM when I arrived (night before the oral argument) there were eight people awaiting seats for tomorrow’s McDonald v. Chicago 14th Amendment/Second Amendment case. By the time I left, with my feet too numb to feel, there were thirteen people trickled in, including a GW law-school student and her Mom who brought an air mattress and a comforter. When I cell-phoned some of the stalwarts later, before beginning this draft, I was told there were nearly 50 people there, including 15 or so high-school students who decided to rough it and see a landmark case at the Supreme Court.

Only 50 are guaranteed seats, so the window of opportunity is pratically closed. The Marshall’s office expected the crowd to develop in the a.m., looks like they’ll be SOOL.

Coulda been worse — for Heller, the line started TWO days ahead of time. This night-before stuff is child’s play. But it’s COOOOOLD.

As usual, the hale and hearty on line are more knowledgeable about this case than most of the public (and the media — Wash Post made their above-the-fold front-page story today a referendum on Justice Scalia, read like an unsavory biography (they don’t like the guy!), instead of the merits of the case; what facts Court reporter Robert Barnes did provide were out of whack, thin, misleading, pretty standard for that rag. Guess what they chose for an illustration — a picture of Chirs Broughton carrying his AR-15 at the Obama rally in Phoenix!! I kid you not. That makes sense, right? The Wash Compost’s idea of a gun image is a months old piece of discriminatory controversy, not something depicting basic human rights.

We had dynamic chats on the street about the premise of the case (the Post barely touched it), constitutional realities, the unknowns, the likely outcomes, the vote — Mike the blogger, incredibly knowledgable and with past cases at his fingertips with such detail and a tongue too fast even for me to follow, predicts a 9 -0 result — the Court will not overrule its Heller jurisprudence, and even hopelessly anti-gun-rights Ginsburg will forgo her hatred of 2A to reintstate 14A, or so he believes. Robert Cumberland flew in from California and is first in line — and he knows his stuff. This case affects him more than even Heller — that case set the groundwork, but this is the one that might actually force reinstatement of his abrogated rights, and he wants to be here to see it.

The carnival atmosphere is definitely lacking, there isn’t a single camera crew set up — at Heller there were dozens at this point, but no doubt there will be some tomorrow. Yet this case stands to have more net effect than Heller, it just doesn’t break ground in the same way. Dick Heller was out there after I left (phone tips from the folks I met, seven men and one woman), chatting up the crowd, enjoying his 15 years of fame, his nephew plans to be on line to see the proceedings, some guy named Robert is holding a place in line in the freezing cold for a party unnamed, at $20 an hour. Dan Schmutter, attorney for JPFO dropped by to see what’s up, this is definitely the hot ticket in town — all seats in Chambers are reserved, save for the precious few for the rabble (what we call the public).

Perhaps the most telling perspective came from a British theology professor visiting here, met in a bar on the frigid way home — he thinks the only rights you legitimately have are those the government gives you. You can have a gun if government “allows” it, with no ammo, locked in a locker, and this is freedom. If he was on the Court we’d be doomed. I’m not making this up.

Exhausted, need to pack, will observe tomorrow and provide my observations soon. Real soon.

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Guns Saves Lives: Click If You Agree

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders

http://www.gunlaws.com

alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral arguments will be heard this Tuesday, March 2, with a decision expected in June.

I’m hitting the road tomorrow (for two Texas conventions) and will be at the Court for eyewitness reports. The circus atmosphere does not appear to be in the air — yet this case could have more far-reaching consequences than the Heller case.

There’s no disagreement that when the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791, they were designed to control the federal government only, not the states. Did the 14th Amendment change that?

The Colonists and the Founders were intensely afraid that a strong central government would eventually confiscate the rights cherished by early Americans — the very things that made America great and that have drawn people here like magnetism.

It was not a baseless fear, as we can see clearly from constant and growing federal usurpations of our rights and freedoms, with massive accumulations of power in Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment says it plainly: “CONGRESS shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The whole idea was to control the central government, not the states (which had their own protections and statements of rights).

The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery – the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves – especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Congress, led by the northern states, declared that all Americans had rights and that, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” (the key 52 words of the 14th Amendment’s 435 words, emphasis added). The historical record is emphatic in noting that the right to arms, especially for freedmen, was a prime mover in passing this amendment.

That language is clear, but here’s where it gets tricky, and the heart of the McDonald case. Passage of 14A didn’t automatically protect all citizens. What exactly are all the rights, privileges and immunities of the people? For reasons too complex to go into now, rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to control the states, but only one at a time, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There were two main ways to do this — the Privileges and Immunities clause (which protects only citizens), and the Due Process clause (which applies to “any person”). The Court has essentially abandoned the P&I clause, and relied mainly on Due Process.

A set of cases, combined into “The Slaughterhouse Cases” (look that up, it’s fascinating) pretty much gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, by saying the only rights you have as an American are extremely narrow. The P&I clause has essentially been a dead letter since that case in 1873 — and this is why McDonald v. Chicago is seen as so critical — it could breathe life into the heart of the 14th Amendment. The Second Amendment is the subject matter, but the 14th Amendment is what’s at stake. OK, OK, they’re both at stake.

With a key chunk of the 14th essentially dead, the High Court has relied on Due Process to apply (legal eagles say “incorporate”) the Bill-of-Rights rights against the states. That’s why states can’t search and seize your property without a warrant (well, in theory at least — the states have usurped enormous powers too). The Due Process clause is why free speech cannot be denied by the states (again, only in theory — the abuses here are so great it’s the subject of my next book: Bomb Jokes At Airports — And 186 Other Things You’d Better Not Say).

So now we’re at the case in hand. Chicago has pretty much outlawed or severely infringed firearms rights for anyone in the city. All the city’s powers are basically derived from the state of Illinois. Does Chicago have legitimate power to outlaw your rights? It says yes.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States. (FWIW, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey filed briefs supporting Chicago, a total of three arguing against RKBA rights.)

I say, along with a huge chunk of this great country, that the states should be as totally bound to protect and safeguard the rights you have as an American citizen as all government should be. (38 briefs were filed in defense of our rights, including one by 251 congressmen and 58 senators). I go a bit further and say the bigots who have been denying and repressing your rights all this time belong in prison, but we’re not likely to go that far. This time.

People who know about these things believe it is most likely that, if the High Court decides the states are obligated to honor the Second Amendment (and by implication, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights) they will apply the Due Process clause to justify their reasoning. That’s how it’s always been done, that’s the most safe and precedent-ready route, and that’s the best argument to press. Or is it?

Hopes are huge and the Court has subtly signaled that it is ready to finally breathe life into the P&I clause, and that has become the dominant argument for the petitioners (McDonald, et al.) and their attorneys, led by Alan Gura. The Court has all it needs to go the Due Process route, why not give it the encouragement it needs, seems to want, to rebirth P&I.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. McDonald v. Chicago is seen as the best opportunity in more than a century to fix the harm done by Slaughterhouse. There is virtually unanimous consensus that Slaughterhouse was bad law, decided for bad reasons, and that it needs to be overturned. It has killed off a crucial part of a crucial constitutional amendment, and the times, and the Court, and the legal system are ready to set it right. It means upsetting a huge apple cart, but it’s time.

Even though the subject matter of McDonald is gun rights, and a positive decision will have enormous positive impact on everyone’s right to arms, many on the political left are supporting this case. Talk about strange bedfellows. They want that 14th Amendment restored because they see it as a linchpin for all sorts of possible “civil rights” they envision in the future. Think of every wacky demand the left makes, and then imagine these are “found,” one by one, to be civil rights the federal government can force the states to honor and protect.

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run. Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know. And the idea of losing the case, leaving states free to trample our precious right to arms, is just unthinkable. Giving up the best chance we’ve had in our history to right the wrongs of Slaughterhouse is not an easy option to consider. But the NRA, with laser aim on reinstating the rights of Chicagoans, has stepped into the fray, and asked for and received part of the tiny argument time (30 minutes) Alan Gura has before the Court.

The NRA has retained Paul Clement, the former solicitor general whose experience before the Court is unrivaled (and who wrote the pro-rights brief signed by 58% of the U.S. Congress for this case). The NRA wants to make sure the Due Process arguments are firmly made, since Mr. Gura has chosen the somewhat riskier focus on the Privileges and Immunities clause (though both camps make arguments for both approaches). The NRA’s request for time, unusual but not unheard of, was definitely a fly in the ointment, but an ointment they felt needed a stir and examination.

To be sure, many of the friend-of-the-court amicus briefs filed in this case brought up and documented well the value, need and reasons to re-establish the P&I clause — but it would break very new ground. So the NRA’s position is not out in left field — they are recognizing and making the more traditional case based Due Process. It’s a double-barreled approach for success. which is a good thing. Probably. You never know when the Supreme Court gets its hands on an issue.

The most dangerous game may be the side note about Chicago’s gun-registration scheme. If you can have a gun there at all it must be re-registered every year, most guns simply cannot be registered, and if you miss your renewal date (and fee for every gun you own) the gun(s) becomes permanently unregisterable and contraband. Is that OK? The Court’s handling of this policy if they decide to touch it (and it seems they may have to based on the facts of the case), is fraught with danger for gun rights.

So there you have it.

In the amicus brief my company Bloomfield Press filed with lead attorney Chuck Michel and dozens of district attorneys, gun rights groups from Texas, Virginia and Arizona, sheriff Richard Mack who was behind the original Brady law case (which he won) and others, we mainly left the 14A arguments for others. Instead, we addressed some essential points that got far less attention.

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

We did this with five separate arguments, two of which were a direct result of the work I did with attorneys Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook on my 10th book, Supreme Court Gun Cases. We found 92 gun-related cases the Court had heard (starting in 1820) up to that time (2003) and they were uniformly consistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms. (By my count, the Court has actually heard 103 gun-related cases at this point. McDonald will be the 104th).

In 14 of these prior cases the Court repeatedly stated every basic tenet of self defense in effect today. The Heller case forced the modern-day judiciary to finally unambiguously recognize and accept self defense as a core reason and justification for the right to arms in the first place. The public already understood this well. We carefully documented which classic cases supported which aspects of self defense (innocence, reasonable belief, grounds for belief, actions not words, necessity, equal force, immediacy ends, retreat and chase, plus rightfully armed, mutual combat, wounding and withdrawal) to show how solidly grounded these rights and issues are in the High Court’s existing jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Gun Cases

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed! has the complete case that saved the Second Amendment, with 400 key quotes highlighted and plain English analysis, plus summaries of the first 96 gun cases the High Court has decided.

http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm

My next post is planned for the evening before the oral argument (I’m breaking my infrequent-posts rule, but you understand). I’ll be down at the courthouse to see the theatrics, though I’m not expecting much. The wind went out of those sails with the Heller case (and camping out in early March is a much tougher gig than in D.C. in October). Still, with both the left and the right focused on this seminal 14A hearing, well, I’ll let you know what I find. Fortunately, I’ll spend the night in my hotel.

P.S. In Heller, when we waited with bated breath for the bottom-line result we wanted to hear “Affirmed.” And we did. In this case, we’re rooting for “Reversed.” That means the lower court decision supporting Chicago’s gun-rights denial, which is being challenged here, is overturned.

The McDonald v. Chicago petitioners website, with background:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com

The amicus brief joined by Bloomfield Press:
BLOOMFIELD PRESS McDonald v. Chicago amicus curiae brief

Background on all Supreme Court Gun Cases:

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

My initial summary and press release on the issues:

http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_BP_Amicus.htm

Every amicus brief filed:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

Supreme Court official website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- Should individual states be required to honor your guarantees under the Bill of Rights?

Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to say yes, in an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief just filed.

The goal is to require states to be bound by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They are not currently obligated to do so. This principle is up for review in McDonald v. Chicago, expected to be argued at the High Court in February, 2010, and decided by June. See the filing here — http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 only to control Congress (e.g., “Congress shall make no law…”), and the High Court has only applied the Bill to the states in bits and pieces. Studies have shown most people are unaware of this.

The 14th Amendment in 1868 said states cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, or deprive or deny the rights of the people, but it provided few details — and the High Court has been evaluating that since then.

Working piecemeal, the Court has declared states cannot deny free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, the right to counsel in a criminal trial and more. This principle is now on trial in what may be the highest-profile case of its kind — the right to arms in the Second Amendment.

Chicago has flatly banned this right, leaving its citizens defenseless, and insists it has the power to do so. The city’s ban does little to disarm hardened criminals who simply roam free, carrying guns illegally at will.

“The core issue is whether a state has legitimate power to deny any fundamental right to its people,” says Alan Korwin, author of eight books on gun law and the publisher at Bloomfield Press, the nation’s largest producer and distributor of gun-law books. “This issue is so broad and crucial to America that pro-rights and even anti-rights people on the gun issue are aligned to overturn Chicago’s blanket denial of a fundamental right,” he says.

The avowedly anti-gun-rights Washington Post observed that,

“Lawyers from both the left and right of the political spectrum will present strong arguments that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.”

That sentiment was echoed in the similarly anti-rights LA Times, which stated editorially,

“It’s tempting to hope that the court will rule that states aren’t bound by the Second Amendment,” but continued, “Allowing the states and cities to ignore this part of the Bill of Rights could undermine the requirement that they abide by others… this is no time for the Court to start picking and choosing when it comes to the Bill of Rights.”

Bloomfield Press joins 34 California DAs, eight Nevada DAs, former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack (the hero of the successful Brady-bill case that set 10th Amendment limits on federal invasion of states’ rights), several law-enforcement associations, and citizens’ rights groups in Arizona, California, Texas and Virginia in the amicus filing.

Mr. Korwin’s extensive research and material appears throughout the brief, drafted by California attorney Chuck Michel of Michel and Associates.

The main points argued include:

1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a deeply rooted “fundamental right” and thus properly applied to the states;
2. The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment necessarily incorporates the Second Amendment to apply against the states;
3. The right to armed self defense is a fundamental right recognized repeatedly by the Supreme Court dating back to the 19th century;
4. The right to self defense, in addition to the right to arms, has been well established as fundamental for centuries in state constitutions, and in federal law and state law;
5. Firearms are and have always been recognized as essential to exercise the right to self defense, with each one reliant upon the other; and
6. Federalism (states rights) presents no obstacle to incorporating a fundamental right of the people.

The entire brief may be downloaded here
(it will be on the Supreme Court website shortly).

http://www.gunlaws.com/supreme.htm

——–

The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amici include the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), The Texas Concealed Handgun Association (TCHA), and The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), all easily googled. The complete list of amici with descriptions of their interests are in the brief.

Gunlaws.com

Scottsdale, AZ --(AmmoLand.com)-As expected, the end of the ammo shortage is a spotty affair, with readers writing to say that their neck of the woods is still sparse or barren.

I did say it was ending, not that it’s over, sorry if I overstated the case. Cabela’s locally (Ariz.) has goods on the shelves, as does WalMart and local shops, and prices are dropping.

Hang tight fellas and gals, the boom is off the mad rush and I believe things will normalize soon. Sorry if I implied it was done and gone and everything was universally hunky dory.

One local customer at Walmart reports: “Just left with 6 boxes of blazer gold 50rd boxes for 8.95 each . (No more left ); and 2 boxes of .40 Blazer Gold 12.95 each. they still had 20+ boxes left; Lady behind the counter said they got in 5K of WBW yesterday in 9mm and one customer bought it all. How much you want to bet it will be out at the gun show for $25-30 per 100rd box.”

One major distributor was flooded with calls because of that Page Nine report, called to set me straight that it’s far from over. Gun dealers are paying retail at WalMart to obtain something to sell, ranges are suffering and having to ration, even PDs are curtailing practice. But the military has few problems, says this insider, because their small arms ammo comes mainly from AFT’s Lake City plant in Missouri, and commercial providers like PMC don’t compete directly (but really straight answers are a little hard to come by).

Some calibers are more scarce than others, with handgun loads in shorter supply. Like I said, it’s a spotty affair. And let’s face it, marksmen have plenty of ammo, right? you just can’t get more, or replace spent shells at a good price.

In other news, CBS TV reported on 9/23/09 that there’s an ammo shortage, and background checks on gun sales have spiked. They’re only ten months late, why is no one surprised.

The Austin Star-Telegram quoted me in a story suggesting there is light at the end of the tunnel: http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1639775.html.

The Huffington Post carried an AP story with a dimmer view: http://tinyurl.com/ykugn24. Perhaps the real news is that America’s position is more precarious than we realize, and ammo’s just the bellwether — this could happen to toilet paper, batteries, canned goods, liquor, cigarettes, candles, bottled water– any consumer goods struck by a rumor or perceived threat, and manufacturers would not be able to meet demand.

Gunlaws.com

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)- In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn’t think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, “I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing tenet of American law.

The Bloomfield Press book “Supreme Court Gun Cases” (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme Court’s library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time. Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” released in 2008. The fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in “The Heller Case” book, http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm, and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company’s website, http://www.gunlaws.com, using the National Directory button.

The brief index below is a convenient research and navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one.

The news media, pundits, Congress and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer have unfortunately exhibited complete ignorance of these cases, and public policy is harmed by that lack of knowledge.

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate. The news media is encouraged to correct any misconceptions that may exist on this subject and in Ms. Sotomayer’s sworn testimony.

IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER:

KEY: Name Date Citation Page

Acers v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 388 238
Is fear of a deadly attack, without reasonable demonstrated grounds for the fear, sufficient to support a claim of self defense [NO]; Must the danger be immediate [YES]; Can any object be considered as a deadly weapon depending on how it was used [YES].

Alberty v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 499 231
If a husband sees another man trying to get into his wife’s room window at night is it natural for him to investigate further [YES]; Is the husband under a duty to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstances [NO]; May the husband use only as much force as is necessary to repel the assault [YES]; If in an ensuing confrontation the husband shoots and kills the other man, then flees, must his flight in and of itself be seen as evidence of his guilt [NO].

Allen v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 492 241
Are words alone sufficient provocation to justify an assault [NO]; Are words alone sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter [NO]; Can premeditation and intent to kill be determined from your actions [YES]; Although flight after a possibly criminal event may suggest guilt, does it prove it conclusively [NO].

Allison v. United States 1895 160 U.S. 203 216
Is it reasonable to believe that you’re in immediate deadly danger if a person, known to be abusive, known to carry a pistol, and who has made public threats against your life, makes a motion as if to draw down on you, even if it turns out he wasn’t armed at the time [YES]; If there is no corroborating evidence besides your testimony, may the jury decide to take your word for it and acquit based on your credibility [YES]; If you have your deer rifle with you while visiting a friend’s house and your adversary shows up, and in an ensuing confrontation you shoot him, can the judge instruct the jury that you’re guilty of murder if you armed yourself to go hunt down your adversary, when there is no evidence to support this claim [NO].

Andersen v. United States 1898 170 U.S. 481 255
If an indictment is brought charging that a defendant shot and then threw a victim’s body into the sea, so the exact cause of death cannot be known, is the indictment flawed and invalid [NO]; Do the elements of self defense have to be present for an accused person to successfully claim self defense [YES].

Beard v. United States 1895 158 U.S. 550 208
Can you stand your ground with a shotgun against an unprovoked armed attack on your property near your home [YES]; Is there a greater duty to retreat on your own property than in your house [NO].

Brown v. United States 1921 256 U.S. 335 285
Is there a duty to retreat when attacked by a man with a knife [NO]; Believing you’re in a mortal conflict, if you fire a shot in the heat of combat, which in cool reflection later may be seen as unnecessary, may you still be acquitted on grounds of self defense [YES]; Is your right of self defense roughly similar in your home, on your land, and at your work [YES]; Can detached reflection be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife [NO].

Gourko v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 183 189
If you shoot someone who has repeatedly threatened you, and the circumstances of the shooting are not found to be justifiable as self defense, does the fact that you armed yourself in response to the threat automatically make the shooting murder (as opposed to manslaughter) [NO].

Logan v. United States 1892 144 U.S. 263 180
Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a preexisting right recognized by the Constitution, and not a right created by the Constitution [YES]; Is a prisoner in legal custody entitled to protection “while he is deprived of the ordinary means of defending and protecting himself” [YES].

Rowe v. United States 1896 164 U.S. 546 247
If a man is provoked into making a minor assault on someone, and then backs off in good faith, is his right to self defense restored if the person he assaulted attacks him with a deadly weapon? [YES]; Is he required to retreat under such circumstances [NO]; Is he under an obligation to try to only wound an attacker when fighting for his life [NO]; Can either party in a mutual combat claim self defense [NO].

Starr v. United States 1894 153 U.S. 614 196
If a law officer legally serving a warrant shoots at a suspect without identifying himself, is the suspect justified in shooting back and killing the officer in self defense [YES].

Tennessee v. Garner 1985 471 U.S. 1 428
Is the use of deadly force by police to prevent the escape of all felony suspects constitutionally unreasonable [YES]; Is the use of deadly force by a police officer permissible under the 4th Amendment, if necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect who threatens the officer with a weapon, or if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if, where feasible, some warning has been given [YES].

Thompson v. United States 1894 155 U.S. 271 203
Does arming yourself after being threatened, and then traveling the only road in the area where you know your adversary may be, turn a subsequent shooting of the adversary during a confrontation into murder? [NO]; Is arming yourself for legitimate self defense premeditation [NO].

Wallace v. United States 1896 162 U.S. 466 224
Is it up to the jury to decide whether a homicide is murder, manslaughter or justifiable [YES]; Does a perfect right of self defense require blamelessness in the confrontation and an act of necessity only [YES]; Can you claim self defense if you had intentionally brought about a lethal conflict [NO]; Is it up to the jury to decide whether you armed yourself defensively or otherwise [YES]; Is it murder if you enter a quarrel without felonious or malicious intent, and then, under reasonable belief of imminent mortal danger, you kill the assailant [NO]; Does the fact that you deliberately go and arm yourself, for self defense or other innocent purpose, turn a subsequent shooting necessarily from manslaughter to murder [NO].

If this report works for you — please tell your friends!
Sign up (or off) for email delivery: alan@gunlaws.com

GunLaws.com

Arizona - -(AmmoLand.com)- The week of July 4th is being established as National Training Week, when Americans celebrate their freedom with firearms at the nation’s shooting ranges. “Good Americans Are Good Marksmen.”

Perfect time to bring a newcomer to the range for an experience, and to exercise your freedom. Participating ranges offer free handgun rentals, special classes, go out and ask your local range to participate if they’re not. (They’ll probably say, “Never heard of it,” that’s OK, it’s all described here, print it and give it to them):

http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg has endorsed the idea, along with Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, many others, all posted at that link. Sorry I don’t have more time. You want to do something to defend your rights? Visit your range and motivate them.

National Training Week

About:
Bloomfield Press and gunlaws.com are owned and operated by Alan Korwin. This is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in America, nationally recognized as an expert resource in this narrowly focused niche.

Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

“One man with courage is a majority.” –Thomas Jefferson

Alan Korwin's PAGE NINE

Page Nine – -(AmmoLand.com)- I’ve created a special feature for the print media and broadcasters (“Page Nine” regardless of where or when it runs), that covers stories afresh, not the way news rooms typically flavor things. It would help reduce the distrust so many news consumers feel and could be the most avidly followed item you carry — if you carry it. It certainly is well received by my audience.

This casual sample might make you say, “We’ll NEVER run that!” but Page Nine is being built around ad revenues from clear-thinking mainstream businesses.

About the Author:
Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as “The Uninvited Ombudsman,” Alan covers the day’s stories as they ought to read.

Read More of Page Nine Here..